Winning 'triggers fan aggression'

Yoshi525

Vault Senior Citizen
Orderite
"Sports fans are more likely to be aggressive after watching their team win rather than lose, a study suggests.

A Cardiff University team quizzed 197 male rugby supporters going in and out of the city's Millennium Stadium.

They found those who had seen their team win or draw were more aggressive than those who had seen their team lose or had been questioned before the game.

Researchers said fans may get caught up by the euphoria of a win and lose perspective, increasing aggression.

A Cardiff University team quizzed 197 male rugby supporters going in and out of the city's Millennium Stadium.

They found those who had seen their team win or draw were more aggressive than those who had seen their team lose or had been questioned before the game.

Researchers said fans may get caught up by the euphoria of a win and lose perspective, increasing aggression.


In many ways the findings are surprising because you would expect the opposite - for supporters of the losing team to be more aggressive
Marc Jones
The British Psychological Society

The report, published in the Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health journal, also found that the result did not affect planned alcohol intake, which remained similar for all of those questioned.

Losing reduced happiness, but winning did not increase it, the researchers added.

Researchers quizzed 111 supporters as they entered the stadium and 86 as they left.

People were asked about their planned drinking, feelings of happiness and tendency towards aggression.

Riot

Lead researcher Simon Moore said: "The results are consistent with events around the world which have seen the fans of winning teams run riot after the match.

"A possible explanation could be that if a supporter's team wins or draws, he can get so caught up in the match that he loses sight of the future and this loss of perspective leads to increased aggression."

Marc Jones, of the British Psychological Society, said: "In many ways the findings are surprising because you would expect the opposite - for supporters of the losing team to be more aggressive.

"Frustration, which is associated with losing, can cause aggression. But I think it will be worth looking at the physiological reaction to winning.

"It is known that winning causes an increase in testosterone, which has been associated - although far from established - to increases in aggression.""

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6511979.stm

What do you think about this? Are fans really more likely to cause trouble if their team wins? Is the study accurate?
 
Back in 1998, when Croatia won the bronze in the Football World Cup, several trams, buses and quite a lot of people (only injured, though) fell victims under the celebration. If we had won gold, I think there would have been dead people as well.
But, then again, we're a country full of nutjobs and people with PTSD who blow themselves up with hand grenades on New Year.
 
I was surprised at first when I read this but then I remembered my own reactions.

When my favorite team lost, I lost all my energy and just moped on the way home.

When they won however, I would be jumping up and down screaming, "In yo face muthafucker! In yo goddamn face!" And I actually had to stop myself from grabbing a fan from the opposing team by the shirt and screaming that in his face.
 
Howard Bloom covers this in The Lucifer Principle. Basically, when an organism (group, society) is well off, well fed, and afluent it can afford to be experimental, but when it is poor and/or hungry (and so forth) it will revert to more conservative behaviour.

For example, a monkey is more likely to try eating a new kind of berry when it's healthy than it is when it's starving. A healthy monkey can afford a period of sickness should the berries prove to be poisonous, while a starving monkey would be killed by it.

Bloom also claims that, if you compare the winners and the losers of WWII, you will find that the murder rate was much higher in the Allied countries - feelings of victory lead to violence.

(I say claim because I don't have his sources in front of me, and I can't verify them. Presumably they were good.)

It's counter-intuitive, but it makes sense.
 
Atomic Cowboy said:
Bloom also claims that, if you compare the winners and the losers of WWII, you will find that the murder rate was much higher in the Allied countries - feelings of victory lead to violence.
euhm, isn't it pretty obvious that once occupied countries will take revenge on collaborators and hence send the murder rate skyhigh, while germany itself is under allied countrol & everything has to go through military court etc?
 
SuAside said:
Atomic Cowboy said:
Bloom also claims that, if you compare the winners and the losers of WWII, you will find that the murder rate was much higher in the Allied countries - feelings of victory lead to violence.
euhm, isn't it pretty obvious that once occupied countries will take revenge on collaborators and hence send the murder rate skyhigh, while germany itself is under allied countrol & everything has to go through military court etc?

True.

But we could also take a look at the countries who were the most aggresive after WW2. You could say that, without exagarating, that those would be the US and Russia. The ones that appointed themselves as the winners of that war.
 
Back
Top